boatingaccident on Nostr: If these are examples of his thinking then I believe my original critique was spot ...
If these are examples of his thinking then I believe my original critique was spot on.
TL;DR - The more thoughtful right wingers, and I would count Auron MacIntyre among them, would do well to read more Hans-Hermann Hoppe. https://cdn.mises.org/What%20Must%20Be%20Done_7.pdf
"The mistake here lies in the order of operations, assuming that virtue is the result of liberty rather than understanding that liberty can only be enjoyed by a people who have first cultivated a high degree of virtue."
The mistake is in the order of operations, but it is not mine. Virtue without liberty is forced virtue, which as I said originally, is an oxymoron. Forced virtue is simply unthinking compliance, and unthinking compliance is not a virtue. Even God wants us to think as we attempt to comply with His law. However, order and virtue are not the same thing and we should consider the two separately.
"For Machiavelli, the key factor that made Republican government possible was the virtue of the people. Under a monarchy, the people didn't need to practice a high degree of self discipline. The king provided order, and that order allowed the people to prosper even if they didn't have the character to rule themselves."
This is exemplary of the propensity of right wingers to use the word "order" without defining it. Order is the degree to which individuals can be comfortable that their person and property are not in imminent danger of being violated. Some kings may have provided some degree of order at some times by providing a level of protection of persons and property from violators other than the king and his agents, but it is important to remember that each king is also to a lesser or greater degree an agent of disorder himself. The private thieves and murders which the king would, on occasion, protect individuals against were not the only violators of person and property, but the king himself obtained his vast wealth by performing the same type of violations he claimed to protect against.
"Order is more necessary for human flourishing than freedom, a lesson
that many who have always lived under the benefit of a stable civilization often forget."
Order is more necessary for human *survival* than freedom, but for human *flourishing* liberty is more important. Order predates widespread material prosperity, which is what I assume is meant by human flourishing in this context. If order alone were sufficient for increases in material prosperity then we should expect the historical record to reflect material prosperity increases commensurately with increases in order, and this is demonstrably not the case. Order is necessary to maintain what has been achieved, but to go beyond that and build something new liberty is required. Increases in material prosperity require trying new ideas or techniques for production, which is the job of the entrepreneur. Neither a king nor a modern nation state can effectively do the job of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs can only exist within a framework of not only order but also liberty, as they must be free to experiment and take risk (liberty) while also perceiving no imminent threat to their person or property (order).
"Without order, we can't have community or understand our role inside of it. Order is a precondition for community. Community is a precondition for virtue. Liberty is the rare and delicate fruit of a society which is virtuous."
I don't think this framing is correct, I think this is a far more accurate summary:
Order and community are inextricably linked, there is a causality going in both directions. Order cannot be obtained by an individual alone, nor can a community be maintained if people are not secure in their persons and property to a large degree. Community and order are both preconditions for liberty, as without the assurances of security in person and property (both physical security as well as normative security) provided by the community then the exercise of liberty is impossible as the struggle to survive is all-consuming. Liberty is a prerequisite for virtue as virtue can only truly be achieved when the vast majority of the individuals within the community choose to be virtuous of their own volition. This choice is only possible when unvirtuous choices are both presented (liberty) and declined (true virtue), otherwise any virtue is merely forced virtue, which is not virtue at all.
TL;DR - The more thoughtful right wingers, and I would count Auron MacIntyre among them, would do well to read more Hans-Hermann Hoppe. https://cdn.mises.org/What%20Must%20Be%20Done_7.pdf
"The mistake here lies in the order of operations, assuming that virtue is the result of liberty rather than understanding that liberty can only be enjoyed by a people who have first cultivated a high degree of virtue."
The mistake is in the order of operations, but it is not mine. Virtue without liberty is forced virtue, which as I said originally, is an oxymoron. Forced virtue is simply unthinking compliance, and unthinking compliance is not a virtue. Even God wants us to think as we attempt to comply with His law. However, order and virtue are not the same thing and we should consider the two separately.
"For Machiavelli, the key factor that made Republican government possible was the virtue of the people. Under a monarchy, the people didn't need to practice a high degree of self discipline. The king provided order, and that order allowed the people to prosper even if they didn't have the character to rule themselves."
This is exemplary of the propensity of right wingers to use the word "order" without defining it. Order is the degree to which individuals can be comfortable that their person and property are not in imminent danger of being violated. Some kings may have provided some degree of order at some times by providing a level of protection of persons and property from violators other than the king and his agents, but it is important to remember that each king is also to a lesser or greater degree an agent of disorder himself. The private thieves and murders which the king would, on occasion, protect individuals against were not the only violators of person and property, but the king himself obtained his vast wealth by performing the same type of violations he claimed to protect against.
"Order is more necessary for human flourishing than freedom, a lesson
that many who have always lived under the benefit of a stable civilization often forget."
Order is more necessary for human *survival* than freedom, but for human *flourishing* liberty is more important. Order predates widespread material prosperity, which is what I assume is meant by human flourishing in this context. If order alone were sufficient for increases in material prosperity then we should expect the historical record to reflect material prosperity increases commensurately with increases in order, and this is demonstrably not the case. Order is necessary to maintain what has been achieved, but to go beyond that and build something new liberty is required. Increases in material prosperity require trying new ideas or techniques for production, which is the job of the entrepreneur. Neither a king nor a modern nation state can effectively do the job of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs can only exist within a framework of not only order but also liberty, as they must be free to experiment and take risk (liberty) while also perceiving no imminent threat to their person or property (order).
"Without order, we can't have community or understand our role inside of it. Order is a precondition for community. Community is a precondition for virtue. Liberty is the rare and delicate fruit of a society which is virtuous."
I don't think this framing is correct, I think this is a far more accurate summary:
Order and community are inextricably linked, there is a causality going in both directions. Order cannot be obtained by an individual alone, nor can a community be maintained if people are not secure in their persons and property to a large degree. Community and order are both preconditions for liberty, as without the assurances of security in person and property (both physical security as well as normative security) provided by the community then the exercise of liberty is impossible as the struggle to survive is all-consuming. Liberty is a prerequisite for virtue as virtue can only truly be achieved when the vast majority of the individuals within the community choose to be virtuous of their own volition. This choice is only possible when unvirtuous choices are both presented (liberty) and declined (true virtue), otherwise any virtue is merely forced virtue, which is not virtue at all.